tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC December 1, 2011 4:00pm-5:00pm EST
guaranteed one of the winners will be newt. >> that's possible in mathematical terms, you know a plus and a plus equals a -- >> mitt romney. >> and a minus and a minus equals a -- >> okay, listen, the show startç now. >> you're not so good about math. >> i was starting to thinking about the insider trading on capitol hill. i was so pleased about my newt comment, i just tuned you out. >> ah, thank you. well tune us out now and let's start your show. >> okay, thank you. well, developing now, our big story is the insiders, congressional insiders, to be precise. good thursday afternoon to you. my name is dylan ratigan. our senate, the u.s. senate at this hour is holding its first-ever hearing on so-called insider trading practices among members of our own congress. the fact is, and it has recently been highlighted, if you or i were to make trades, stock market trades based on
non-public material information that altered the prices of those stocks, and we knew it, we'd be thrown in jail. but members of our congress are 100% excluded from precisely such laws. >> the american people need to know that their elected leaders play by the exact same rules that they play by. >> we should be held to the same, and quite frankly, i think a higher standard than the members of the general public and should not be able to profit based on non-public information. >> so, not only are our elected officials above the laws they write, they're turning a profit in the process at the expense of every other major capital market participant, and in the process, breaching the very trust in america's once-vital capital markets. senator scott brown, who was co-sponsoring a senate bill, and you just heard from there, points to research showing that u.s. senators' common stock portfolios beat the market on average by 12% a year between
1993ç and 1998. only bernie madoff had numbers like that. those numbers are twice as good as corporate insiders, executives, ceos, who run their own companies, and invest their own money if their own companies. what's worse, during this period, the average portfolio underperformed you and me by 1%. and it was the first decade in the history of the stock market in which there were no returns whatsoever. it's a big reason why the collective net worth of our lawmakers has spiked 25% in the past few years while ours continue to decline. no wonder congress has been trying to keep it a secret. somebody's trying to call me on my phone. i apologize. i just turned it off. there are some on the hill who have been trying unsuccessfully for years to close the giant loophole we're discussing. maybe that was congress calling to tell me to shut up. it has recently picked up steam and there will be no shutting up for the following reason.
a new book "thrust: the totally legal capitol hill insider trading at the expense of us and our capital markets into the limelight and now congress is quite simply feeling the heat. it is on us to elevate the temperature. we owe this new interest to hoover institute fellow, peter swhooir schweitzer, his new book is called "throw them all out," explicit to the platinum citizenship, the rules that apply to congress that are exploiting their privilege at our expense. and in the process, compromising the trust in our capital markets. he is back today along with a man who knows about compromising the trust in american governments and capital markets. he participated in breaching that trust and was punished for it. he ended up serving time in prison,ç in fact. he has decided to inject himself back into the conversation in order for us to better understand how that trust is breached, such that we might restore it. jack abramoff is with us, author of "capital punishment." i'm going to begin with you,
peter. very simply, before your piece, your book was featured on "60 minutes," i guess representative slaughter only had nine co-sponsors for the bill. it's now to 127 co-sponsors. what needs to happen from here to make this ball of fire big enough to ensure that this is put to a stop? >> well, people need to keep applying the pressure. you know, there's been a lot of media interest in this story. the reaction, by and large, has been washington, d.c. has tried to ignore it. the rest of the country has been outraged. so i'm encouraging people, contact your congressman. tell them how you feel about this, that congressional insider trading is wrong, and that you're watching them. the stock act is a move in the right direction, but it doesn't deal with a lot of the problems. but at least it's moving things in the right direction. and dylan, honestly, if we can't get to the point where we can force our lawmakers to stop trading, insider trading on the stock market, i mean, what hope
is there for really any other change? >> again, i would say, even if we can't, it will only add to the amendment for the 28th amendment to get money out of politics. because if we can't stop this, it means we only need that many more people working to separate business and state from the auction system. jack, give us a sense, as to your opinion of senator lieberman's offer and the view that the s.e.c. may have the authority to do this what is the gray area that is being navig e navigated here. and is it gray or is it black and white, and this is fine as long as there's noç new laws? >> i think that's the goal, no new laws. that's the typical goal on capitol hill, just keep things going the way they are. if this thing were illegal, i promise you the justice department would be all over these guys. i know for a fact they would. it is not illegal. this is one of many circumstances where the congress has laws that they apply to all of us and they don't apply to themselves. and that has got to be changed overall, as well as in this situation. >> peter, let's talk about the stock act for a second.
again, it's got a great marketing scheme, which is stop trading on congressional knowledge. it's got good pr people involved. beyond that, it stops trading on congress. it says it's illegal for congress to trade stock on nonpublic information. it's already illegal for everybody else to do this. this is a joke, but that's great, now it applies to them. congress must file stock trades reports over 90 days, i presume that's after they've done it. this also offends me tremendously, peter. can i explain why that cis? >> yeah. at cnbc, we were restricted from buying a stock of any kind, but for a single interval once a year that had to be cleared through the highest lawyers at nbc. similar laws apply to financial reporters at "the wall street journa journal", at bloomberg news, at reuters and elsewhere. i can assure you a law that prevents dylan ratigan as an
anchor at "fast money" at cnbc from buying any kind of security of any kind ever is vastly more prohibitive for my ability to participate in the capital markets, and these guys can buy whatever they want as long as they report it 90 days after. it's a joke! >> yeah. it's an absurd standard. it's a move in the right direction, but añvery, very small move. i think what we need to have. because, honestly, it's going to be very hard, even if you pass this law, to imagine the securities and exchange commission aggressively going after these guys. they're the ones the write that s.e.c. budget, the s.e.c. commissioner is proofed by the senate. they're just going to be very reluctant to do that. i think we need to have instantaneous disclosure. i mean, if they're debating a big pentagon budget or they're debating health care issues, we should be able to see in realtime why these guys -- >> why should we tolerate even that, jack. why should the standard for an anchor at cnbc, who does not make laws, by the way.
who does not fundamentally participate in any material way in legislation or they are a commentator among millions of commentators in that universe, why should the standard of compliance be higher for an anchor at cnbc than it is for a u.s. senator? >> exactly. dylan, you put your finger on it, exactly. if they choose to serve in the congress, which is a privilege, by the way -- >> thank you. >> coming to serve the people. they should take all of their assets and put them in trust. they shouldn't be trading anything, not one share, ever, until they leave. >> that's right! that's -- again, i don't see how you can sit here and tell all sorts of people that they can't buy a single stock as long as they have a job, and tell people that make the policies that dictate the flow of capital on the earth, peter, that there is any circumstance under which it's appropriate for them to be either spending half their time fund-raising and the other half the time taking insider trading
tips. it's no wonder we've got the most energy efficiency, the second most expensive education with terrible results, all these wars, it goes on and on and on, that nobody's evenç legislatin. >> no, i agree with you completely. i mean, you have to have instantaneous disclosure. everybody needs to put their assets into a blind trust. you also need to stop the practice of these friends and family rounds of ipos. i mean, you can give ipo shares to a senator or a congresswoman that's going to net them $100,000 in a day. and that's just absurd. i mean, how is that not a bribe? that is a bribe. >> if i was given a friends and family share as an anchor at cnbc, i would have been fired! >> yes. yes, that's exactly right. and rightfully so. >> and shamed publicly in the "new york post" as a criminal. it's a joke! >> yeah, and yet this is something that they are allowed to do and they do quite regularly. this is a critical issue. and people have got to rise up on this.
if we cannot deal with this issue of crony capitalism in the heart of the powers -- corridors of power in the country, we're in deep trouble when it comes to handling even more complex issues. >> or maybe the anchors at cnbc should go become senators. the other way. jack, a pleasure. thanks for rejoining us in the conversation. and peter, tremendous -- not only a congratulations, but a debt of gratitude owed to you for making the effort to document what you have in this book such that it could become the content as it did for "60 minutes" that allows everybody in this country to understand what you're talking about. if you aren't familiar, check it out. the book "throw them all out." jack's book as well, a worthy read. "capital punishment." coming up here on "the dr show," using the money we do have and we are spending to rebuild afghanistan to rebuild our own crumbling building and infrastructure in america. how's that for a radical conc t concept? he attack again. what's he saying about the
president and what might he do instead? and what would ever inspire a grown man to take to the streets in this getup? maybe congressional insider trading. we're talking to real-life superheroes later in the show. do stay with us. man: mectric bill was breaking the bank. so to save some money, i trained this team of guinea pigs to row this tiny boat. guinea pig: row...row. they generate electricity, which lets me surf the web all day. guinea pig: row...row. took me 6 months to train each one, 8 months to get the guinea pig: row...row. little chubby one to yell row! guinea pig: row...row. that's kind of strange. guinea pig: row...row. such a simple word... row. anncr: there's an easier way to save. get online. go to geico.com. get a quote. 15 minutes could save you
new jersey governor chris christie insists he is not running for president, but he's acting an awful a lot like a candidate. for the second time this week, christie ripped into the president, this time at the meeting of the governors' association. >> every time there's an opportunity to provide real
leadership, where things will be difficult to do, where it's not a guaranteed layup or a guaranteed photo op, he walks. real leadership is not what you see in the white house right now. as i've said before, i think it's sad that in our country's history to have a bystander in the oval office. and that's what we have. >> and next week governor christie heads to all-important iowa. he says it is to campaign to mitt romney, but is there more than meets the political eye? we bring in our thursday mega panel. karen, susan, jimmy. does he have a point, karen? >> hold on, dylan, i'm on my cell phone. sorry. >> hey, at least i didn't take the call, okay? >> hello? hello? >> all that was, i'm sure that was some senator calling my cell phone to the try to prevent us from having the segment. >> i'm sure that's true! but -- jimmy and i just wanted to have a little fun. >> i can see that. >> i know, i know. at dylan's expense. >> chris christie, look, he's clearly -- that's the role he's
clearly going to play, this attacker -- >> but that wasn't my question. my question was, does he have a point? >> you know, i disagree. the republicans keep saying the president's standing by because they want to suck him into the malaise of what is going on in congress. you know, when they were talking about sort of what was going on with the super committee and sort of it çimploding, he was apec trying to get some work done. what could he have done if he were here? >> but he's trying to run -- >> at some point -- >> -- do-nothing congress -- >> congress has a job to do -- >> and according to him -- >> one at a time. one at a time. we have plenty of time. everybody's going to get to talk. finish your thought, karen, and susan, you can have it. >> part of the public strategy has been to put it on obama and say, he's not leading. part of what the white house is trying to do back is say, wait a second, we have shared responsibility here. you've got your job, i've got my job, let's work together. but why should the president be accountable for them not doing their job? >> well, at the end of the day,
he is going to be held accountable, because that's what the american people are going to do when they go to the voting booths. they're going to say, look at my president and hold him accountable. now, as far as christie goes, he can be facing a very tough election 2013, so maybe a vp spot isn't so bad. but he's at least going to get a great spot at the convention. >> the place i see traction, jimmy, for chris christie in this indictment, or this indictment in general, is not in theproportional debate between republicans and democrats. in other words, i don't get the sense of a republican indicting the leadership of this country is going to help a republican, particularly, because the republicans are so clearly and transparently off the rails, quite candidly. but the assertion that america needs better leadership of any political party, beyond this particular president, to engage directly on issues like the 28th amendment, like real financial reform, et cetera, et cetera, is perhaps chris christie's words are best not applied to president obama specifically, but are best applied to
president obama, the entire congress, and perhaps chris christie himself. >> but there's a missing element to what -- you're right! and there's a missingç elemento what governor christie is saying. he's not saying that about the republican leadership in the house of representatives. >> right, bingo. >> and he's not saying a damn word about the senate democratic leadership, that's running the senate. and he's not saying a word about the fact that the congress -- the congress, by the way, had to create a super committee of itself, because it doesn't have enough committees, by the way, to do something that they haven't done, so he didn't pin any blame on them for failing to do what they were supposed to do. he's now saying that the president was supposed to lead the legislative branch. i don't know how it works in new jersey, but in the united states of america, in the federal government, the president is different than the legislative -- >> fair enough. but here's where i -- the president, if you look at america's history, going back to, again, george washington, not to be too cliched, but through abraham lincoln, through
teddy roosevelt, through fdr, through jfk, through ronald reagan, has chosen to engage in a leadership role with society that by definition, at least on occasion, forces the congress into a following role with that presidency. now, whether this president could have done a better job of that or not, i don't think can be debated. i think that the leadership across the board from all of our leaders, going back, really, through this entire decade now, has been on a steady decline, and the disingenuousness for me, karen, is the suggestion that it is a failure uniquely of the personal characteristics of barack obama as a leader, which is clearly a political narrative that is fraudulent, but at the same time, the counterargument that he's the world's greatest leader, or anybody else's, strikes me as equally lacking in integrity when the bigger conversation really is leadership.
at the same time, it is so ugly and divisive. i mean, it has become in this town, and jimmy knows better than i, you know, what is possible, not what is a good policy, what do we want, but what is possible is really where people start. because it is so divisive and so ugly. and that means you don't get the kind of leadership, frankly, that you should. because people are trying to -- >> i'm going to move on, jimmy, real quick, okay. >> i just want to remind people, the american public, per se, america was founded because we didn't like a strong king. we set up a really strong legislative branch with pretty much a ceremonial president. now, we've had strong presidents, we've had weak presidents. but the one thing we don't like is a president that overreaches. but now this president's being accused of not doing anything at
all. i mean, it's almost disingenuous to say this president is not leading. >> what you said is remarkably disingenuous, it suggests that being the president of the united states at a time of remarkable transition and distress in american history, because of the intention of a figurehead, in any which, way, shape, or form in some way relieves them of the responsibility of actually having to lead. but i want to move to a different subject. i believe that now is the time that our leaders have to step forward and talk about things like hot-spotting, like a third marshall plan, like about creating jobs in this country, like about the 23rd amendment, and stop with all this nonsense and excuses, but i guess everybody already knew that. there's another piece of legislation that's coming through that actually certaiély has good political framing, which is very simple. kind of like get money out, right? rebuild america, not afghanistan. claire mccaskill bringing this into the room. it's hard to see how this is not politically favorable. i presume, susan, that the greatest antagonist of something like this will be some of the defense hawks who will try to
protect defense interests in afghanistan, but i have to figure, those interests have to be diminishing in strength. >> it's the pentagon that's fighting them, no surprise. but what's more interesting and going back a little bit to a previous conversation is that senator coburn also offered up an amendment yesterday. neither amendment, mccaskill or coburn's will go anywhere. >> amendment or bill? >> an amendment now. he offered that we should spend $50,000 per pupil for the kids of military people. now, that's not going to go anywhere, that's not going to have a conversation. >> this is the classic place for hot-spotting. >> it is. >> i cannot think of a better place for hot-spotting than american fracture, jimmy williams. there's a clear data set that can be identified around the weaknesses in infrastructure, and there's a clear budget we're already spending around the world to build things. am i wrong to think that this is a classic case where a hot-spotting narrative and an
american infrastructure narrative, properly prosecuted through the leadership of somebody, i don't know who's supposed to do it, the congress doesn't do it and we don't have a weak government, so there's no leaders. our government's like the occupation. but absent any leaders, i don't know how it gets done. at the end of the day, you have to figure, were there to be some kind of a leader somewhere in the country that an idea like this could perhaps gain a lot of traction. >> listen, i love clair mccaskill's amendment for one reason andç one reason only -- well, no, two reasons. i like the idea of stopping building crap in other countries. i like building things here. we've got lots of rural areas, so lets build. and by the way, that takes money. and since we know we're spending money in wars where people die, i would rather spend it here. that's hot-spotting. go to places that need it. secondly -- >> but here's my question in the interest of time. this is obviously a good idea. we don't have to debate it. what is the political -- why won't this happen? because, obviously, what washington specializes in is
accepting money from special interests to make sure good ideas never happen. this is clearly a good idea, we know 94% of the time the candidate that raises the most money wins. who's raising the money and who's paying the money to make sure as hell that we don't ever invest in our country and make sure that we keep spending money in afghanistan? do we know the answer to that question? >> yeah, the answer's very simple. watch who goes down to the floor of the senate and debates against the claire mccaskill amendment. i guarantee you it will be john mccain and lindsey graham and people who are pro-war. >> got it. go ahead, karen. >> but people have to push for this, dylan. that's the other thing. that's why the occupy and the 99% movement is making people scared, because american people are waking up and saying, wait a second. this is not good enough. we have to take some accountability to the push our leaders to actually lead. we can't say that it is okay, as you talk about, the debate that we deserve, it's not okay to not have that debate. >> that's right. >> and we've got to be the ones to make that happen. >> and we have to educate ourselves to resource mechanisms
that are used by whether it's police chiefs or retail conglomerates to apply them to health care, defense, and infrastructure. and that is hot-spotting, it works, we know it works, we can do it. the panel stays. next here, super pacs. they're not just for presidential candidates anymore. the folks that are getting in on the money. these are the folks that would want to get the money in. woman: my father came to america selling fishcakes from the back of his truck, and in 1942, of course, they were sent away. after the war, as a japanese coming back from camp, he started a little store on main street in seattle. of course they needed some money, and bank of america was the only bank who would talk to my father. and we've stayed with bank of america. we have four stores now, three in the pacific northwest and one in oregon. my parents would not believe how popular it is now. i took some steep risks in my teens. i'd never ride without one now. and since my doctor prescribed lipitor, i won't go without it for my high cholesterol and my risk of heart attack.
why kid myself? diet and exercise weren't lowering my cholesterol enough. now i'm eating healthier, exercising more, taking lipitor. numbers don't lie. my cholesterol's stayed down. lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. it's backed by over 19 years of research. [ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. [ man ] still love that wind in my face! talk to your doctor. don't kid yourself about the risk of heart attack and stroke. if lipitor's been working for you, stay with it. lipitor may be available for as little as $4 a month with the lipitor co-pay card. terms and conditions apply. learn more at lipitorforyou.com. ♪ imagine me and you, i do ♪ i think about you day and night ♪ ♪ it's only right
♪ to think about the girl you love ♪ ♪ and hold her tight ♪ so happy together [ male announcer ] when life changes, so can your insurances needs. use travelers free guide to better coverage to stay prepared. is your auto and home insurance keeping up with you? contact your local travelers agent, or call 800-my-coverage.
well, we throw a lot of numbers around on this program, but the next one is perhaps the most important we will throw around for years to come. it is the number 28. as in, amendment 28. the amendment we all need to get money out of politics and end that 94% problem. the latest slice of evidence that we need to do this is a new report in today'sç "washington post." as not only does ever single presidential candidate have a super pac, desperately trying to keep the money in, raising piles of cash for their campaigns in secret, to manipulate us and prevention legislation that
keeps them in power, now senator mike lee wants to add a super pac element to his leadership pac, which means he would be able to raise unlimited secret corporate cash and spread that money around as a bundler to other campaigns or distribute to other campaigns. citizens united, obviously, the gateway to all of this. the fallout that resulted has brought us the most important debate of our time, the great 28 debate. what are the foundations of that debate? there are basically two of them. one, is money speech? and two, are corporations people? today's specialist, the latest voice to join the great 28 debate, pulitzer prize winner and member of the "chicago tribune's" editorial board, clarence page. and clarence, first off, give us a sense of your encouragement or discouragement as we watch the number of proposed 28th amendments continue to explode. a record number of people on the get money out petition. there are stacks of others like
this. do you believe america is ready for this debate the on money, speech, corporations, and people so we can move to amendment 28? >> well, first of all, dylan, thank you very much for having me on the show. i guess i'm a voice of healthy skepticism for the idea of being able to remove money from politics. i'm not 100% sure that it would even be a good idea because of the unintended consequences, but there's no doubt that the supreme court's citizens united opinion is controversial. a lot of people were outraged by that decision. i'm sure your amendment will be popular at first hearing, but i wonder, the more people talk about it, whether it will keep that support. >> again, that's why the debate is not about my amendment. i have no authority to write amendment. there are no countless amendments from countless politicians and activists. my goal, to be very clear, is to simply seek to help to moderate a debate about the 28th
amendme amendment, such that we can all better understand whether money is speech and whether corporations are people. again, this shall not live or die based on my amendment. and if it does, we should give it up right now. we want to actually drive this debate around those two issues. your thoughts about framing this debate, jimmy? >> well, first of all, the fec ruled today, in case you don't know this, unanimously, by the way, that senator mike lee is not allowed to open his super pac within a pac. so that's good news. the bad news is, he can open a super pac outside of that and it can still do what all the rest of the super pacs do, which is funnel unlimited money and go out and spend it like crazy and we can't trace the money. so my question to mr. page is, and first of all, i'm honored to be able to talk to mr. page. the theory that money isn't speech, that's something dylan and i have been working on for almost a year now. how would you -- is your concern
that it would get in the way of free speech, ie, from the press, and then the second follow-up question to that is, what's the difference between the "chicago tribune" and a blogger sitting in his or her basement, pumping out information about candidates? what is the difference between that in today's -- in a modern day america, and would that be your concern? >> well, certainly, i'mç concerned about all free speech issues. they're equating money with speech. i agree that money, that's what you use or a candidate uses in order to get speech. in order to get on tv. to do direct mail, et cetera. and at the same time, i don't see that money is speech. that's the little leap that the court made, the conservative members of the court swung it. and it's one reason why we have problems now, like citizens united and the issue of whether corporations are people, et cetera. but i'm concerned that if you
did take the money out of politics with an amendment, wouldn't that give the media more power, because then without, say, advertising or direct mail, wouldn't candidates be at the mercy of their media coverage? >> and i suppose, in my own mind, as i sort of talk about this to answer your question, there's a presumption of an alternate -- a debate for an alternate, a more public financing ark tfinance ing architecture, that would address that. and the taking money out of politics would alter the economics of the news organizations as well, that collect a lot of the money in politics -- >> no question about it. >> and the papers. i think little bit interesting to see how that actually plays out. >> can i do a follow-up question there, dylan? >> please. >> with you. you talk about the issue of -- excuse me, i'm sorry, i just had a rick perry moment there. >> money, speech, corporations,
or people? >> no, no, you were speaking about -- >> the media. >> speech freedom. well, yeah,ç one thing, for th media, there's one question that advertising is key, advertising and direct mail is key in politics. but i don't have a vested interest, frankly, in trying to maintain advertising. what i'm concerned about is the ability of a candidate to be able to get their voice out. oh, i know what i was going to ask you about. public financing. who's going to decide which candidates get the money? would you give money to the american nazi party, for example? >> well, i think, first off, it's inappropriate for you to ask me that question, for the simple reason that i think it's inappropriate for me or you or anybody else to suggest that we can answer it. i think in the 21st century, the we should put them out into the communities that care most about them and ask them how they would solve that problem in local districts and model them. because, quite candidly,
clarence, i don't know. >> nice dodge, dylan. >> no, listen, it's not a dodge. if you want to know how i would do it, i would answer your question, but i think that it misses the point. >> please do, because look at the parliamentary systems in great britain, israel, other countries. you get these minority parties on the extreme right and the extreme left. >> i understand that. >> which we don't have. and maybe americans would rather have a system where we got a little more simplicity or a little more moderation. >> one thing you're suggesting from nathan dashel who advocates 100 parties. you could have all sorts of extremist parties that are marginalized by the coalitions that are formed around different groups that are formed by banking, trade, and taxes. if nothing else, it's an interesting debate about amendment 28, wouldn't you say? >> no dough about it.ç when most americans read your
amendment, they say, that's a good idea. but the more it gets out there in public debate, it backs off. that's what debates about it. >> i think that's why we're so excited about drawing the conversation to money speech, corporations, and people and away from the specificity of a given amendment at this point, so we actually are having the core debate that will perhaps then give legs to a future amendment that could reflect the results of the debate which you just helped us advance, clarence. thank you. >> thank you. >> the panel takes off. clarence page, a real pleasure. thank you, sir. from this conversation to the one we had with jack abramoff to peter schweitzer in the first half of our show, what's abundantly clear, a debate about get money out must be add. more than a quarter million of folks had this petition signed in late september. but it is just one of the many great and rapidly developing options in the great 28 debate. if you want to, head to getmoneyout.com and learn more about all of this and how you
can get involved. after the break, the issue that george bush, bill clinton, and barack obama all agree on. and it's not puppies. ♪ the weather outside is frightful ♪ ♪ but the fire is so delightful ♪ nothing melts away the cold like a hot, delicious bowl of chicken noodle soup from campbell's. ♪ let it snow, let it snow
[ coughing continues ] [ female announcer ] more pollution from power plants means more childhood asthma attacks. [ labored breathing ] there's technology that makes the air cleaner, but too many plants don't use it. we can't wait. epa must update power plant standards to protect our kids. [ baby coughing ] a streaming player, and... a sony big screen hdtv. ♪ ♪ ♪ how did it fit down the chimney? [ male announcer ] get low prices on the gifts they love, like this sony hdtv bundle for a connected experience. now eligible for our christmas layaway. save money. live better. walmart.
now eligible for our christmas layaway. you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job. so why are you doing his? only your doctor can determine if your persistent heartburn is actually something more serious... like acid reflux disease. over time, stomach acid can damage the lining of your esophagus. for many, prescription nexium not only provides 24-hour heartburn relief, but can also help heal acid related erosions in the lining of your esophagus. talk to your doctor about the risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures and low magnesium levels with long-term use of nexium. possible side effects include headache,
diarrhea and abdominal pain. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. let your doctor do his job, and you do yours. ask if nexium is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. we can beat this disease. we can win this fight. we just have to keep at it. steady, persistent. today, tomorrow, every day. until we get to zero. >> ceremonies across the globe nod in support of world aids day. the white house adorned with the iconic red ribbon. the president along with president bush and president clinton joining u2's bono and singer alicia keys today to celebrate the successes, mourn the losses, and focus on the work that still needs to be done in the fight for an aids-free generation. during the event, president obama announced millions more in international aid, plus an additional $50 million to fight hiv and aids here in the united
states. one positive sign, the u.n. says the number of new hiv infections worldwide is at its lowest since 1997. now the aids virus was first identified 30 years ago this month, and has since killed 30 million people worldwide, and as we çspeak, 33 million folks li with hiv. here in the u.s., there's more than 1 million patients, but 21% of them, a fifth, one in five, do not know it, raising the risk of infecting others. if you're looking for a testing location, check out aids.gov or text your zip code to knowit. thanks to advancements in science and medicine, if you are able to get treated, 96% of the time you will not spread the virus, but it is going to take 100% of us to end this one for good. we take a break here. and we return, from psychos to superheroes, why the man who brought us the psychopath test has turned his attention to
real-life superhero. is to dig right in. but as his dentist, i know that to do that, he needs to use the brush more dentists use. oral-b. trust the brush more dentists and hygienists use. oral-b. life opens up when you do. try bayer advanced aspirin. it's not the bayer aspirin you know. it's different. first, it's been re-engineered with micro-particles. second, it enters the bloodstream fast, and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. the best part? it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin. test how fast it works for you. love it, or get your money back. i'd like a decaf 360 calories please. i'll have a triple iced 410 calories please. you know what... i'll have this instead. [ female announcer ] swap one thing a day for a yoplait light at around 100 calories. it will add up to amazing.
well, let's face it, we are in a culture in perpetual search of heroes of some kind, from those sworn to protect and serve, to caped crusaders of comic lore, we all like to think there's someone looking out for us. well, our next guest got to know some supposed real-life superheroes, including phoenix jones of seattle. he followed the masked man
everywhere, from his home to the emergency room. what did he find and why do they take to the streets as one-man crime-fighting machines and what does law enforcement think about all of this. john larson was last on the show when he wrote about psychopaths. fortunately, he told me i was not one, if you were psychos to, his amazing new book is called "the amazing adventures of phoenix jones: and the less amazing adventures of some other real-life superheroes."3(p&h(l% where should we begin? when you say real-life superheroes, these are people modeled after superman, i presume, and physically going and do good works in and around communities, is that what we're talking about? >> yeah, well, they devise their own costumes and color schemes and buy their own super weapons like net guns and grappling
hooks and go out into the night, and the less brave hand out food to the homeless, and the more brave like phoenix leap into guns and chase them away, which he did with me in tow, which was a very frightening experience. >> so you're saying that phoenix is the one, at least who you found, who is most aspiring to the comic lore level of direct intervention, is that correct? >> yeah, absolutely. phoenix is incredibly brave, and is, in fact, kind of addicted to bravery. so he'll go out every night and just desperately look for crimes to solve. which sometimes causes trouble, you know, if there aren't any crimes about, he'll kind of leap into a situation -- like one time i was with him and he was convinced he saw a drug deal and he kind of yelled yahtzee! and ran across the road and picked up what the guy had dropped, thinking it was crack, and it turned out to be a pretzel. then on other occasions, he took me into belltown in seattle at
4:00 in the morning, where he stood down a crack gang. and they all had guns and they were saying, if you don't get off the block, we'll show you what our burners do, which turn out to be guns. and phoenix refused to get off the block, and so the crack dealers had to decide whether or not to kill him or go home. and they wentç home. >> what's the difference between phoenix and an uncostumed vigilante with pepper spray and an uncostumed vigilante's relationship with law enforcement relative to a costumed vigilante with pepper spray? >> well, that's a good question. i mean, phoenix has an inspiring, goofy, charismatic charm about him. he's very likable and charming and -- >> he was arrested in october for pepper spraying people, allegedly, however. >> yeah. there was -- >> that's not that charming.
>> no. although, in that particular situation, i think phoenix was not as bad as the police painted him out to be. the police say he just leapt into some party goers and sprayed them indiscriminately with pepper spray, but actually there was a big fight going on and phoenix leapt in -- >> so he behaving heroically? >> i kind of think so. the police wasn't anywhere around and the fight was a big fight. at one point, a guy got run over in a car by somebody else from the other gang. so it was a difficult situation. i mean, i think morally, when you say that, you know, what's the big difference between a vigilante and a guy who dresses up in a super suit, you know, there's not, there's not a vast difference. but i think that phoenix is a -- he's kind of an inspiring guy, you know? he -- one time his car got
broken into and his son got glass in his hand from the window, and so phoenix got the mask that the robber had used to break into his car, andç he ma his own mask from it. he says they used a mask to conceal their identity, and i use the mask to become an identity. even if you're sort of morally not that comfortable with what he does, it's very hard to not really like him. >> right. no, i get it. i can see the charm and desirability of the character and also the liability of everybody out with pepper spray in a suit every night trying to -- you know, that could get out of hand. but a wonderful -- i look forward to learning more in the book itself. jon, it's a pleasure to see you again. >> it's great -- and i'm -- i was going to say, i'm very glad that you turned out to not be a psychopath as well, dylan. i was worried at first, because the show is called, you know, your name, and that's sometimes -- >> it's all that ego.
there's all that egoic aspect, you know, your name and all this. it's only compensated for by an abundance of guilt, shame, and ego, which balances that out. >> absolutely. >> talk to you next time, jon. coming up on "hardball," the day in politics. mitt's suiting up for a war against newt, but gingrich is a master at channeling voter anger. who will emerge the winner on this battle royale. but first, the doctor is in here at "the d.r. show," and maybe he's not exactly a medical doctor, but he is our very own personal show therapist and he's got the secret to success after the break. congratulations. congratulations. congratulations. today, the city of charlotte can use verizon technology to inspire businesses to conserve energy and monitor costs. making communities greener... congratulations. ... and buildings as valuable to the bottom line... whoa !
... as the people inside them. congratulations. because when you add verizon to your company, you don't just add, you multiply. ♪ discover something new... verizon. but my nose is still runny. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't treat that. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your runny nose. [ deep breath] awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is. that's the cold truth! [ male announcer ] yes, it is.
♪ sen♪ co-signed her credit card - "buy books, not beer!" ♪ ♪ut the second at she shut the door ♪ ♪ girl started blowing up their credit score ♪ ♪ she bought a pizza party for the whole dorm floor ♪ ♪ hundred pounds of makeup at the makeup store ♪ ♪ and a ticket down to spring break in mexico ♪ ♪ but her folks didn't know 'cause her folks didn't go ♪ ♪ to free-credit-score-dot-com hard times for daddy and mom. ♪ v.o.: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com
ah, success. it means different things to different people and different things at different times, but the pervasive thinking in our society is that success and happiness are defined by money and status, and our resident therapist, of course, is here to talk about what truly defines success. and more importantly, perhaps, happiness. he'sç got the mug, noah kass, e clinical director of the realization center here in new york city, columnist for the street.com, therapist to "the d.r. show." good to see you. th so this is probably one of the age-old debates. throw down your gauntlet, sir. >> i admire and enjoy what bill cosby said about the subject. he said, i don't know the key to success, but i know the key to failure is trying to please everybody all the time. and i feel like since i was very young, my friends and i have been told from the media, from
television, movies, magazines, even politics that success is about money and it's about status and it's about power. and i sort of reject that notion. i mean, to me, success is a personal choice. that i get to decide what success is supposed to be. i get to make those standards. no one else gets to. >> but doesn't it even go beyond that. because success isn't one of those things that's an external thing, it's a destination. but if you look at what we're learning, everything from quantum mechanics to manifestation of energy and string theory to anything else, that the only thing that actually we have that's valid is the action that we are taking and our intentions at that time. that the destination, by definition, is not only not a given, but when you get to it, will very unlikely even be or hold what you thought it was. >> right, success is in the here and now. it's in the living. it's in observing the environment and the new people and places that are happening around you.
it's not in your preconceived ideas of what's going to happen in the future or your dismay of what has happened in the past. >> let me just play a home viewer for a second. >> okay. >> this is a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense. >> okay.ç well, first of all, thank you -- >> yeah. okay. that's how they like to talk on my show. >> and tweet. >> success is clearly determined by whether you have enough money to take care of yourself, enough money to take care of your family, and have the status and observance of the world, no? >> okay. i certainly think it's responsible to take care of your family with money, but what has this economy over the last few years showed us? >> that money and happiness have a very different correlation. >> it's fleeting. what's the divorce rate? it's fleeting. these are things that can be taken away from us. success is an inner peace. success is a maximizing of our
peacefulness is based on kindness. >> you can do that your whole life. we had these graphics up earlier. i have a little theoretical formula i want to run past you. i feel like there's a displacement or a misplacement of money being attached to happiness. that money equals happiness. which it has been proven 50 ways that after $75,000, there's absolutely, positively no -- really, nothing -- so what does happiness equal? happiness has been widely attached to a human being's about to realize their potential and friends. that graphic is wrong. and that money equals opportunity. so that the opportunity -- that money is -- because it gives you the opportunity -- >> well, freedom. >> or the freedom to actually form relationships and realize your potential. >> what does william wallace say in "braveheart," what will we do with that freedom? that's the key.
that's what you're trying to do every day on your çshow. >> and isn't success the ability to seize that freedom and do something with it that means something to you. >> that means something to you. and it doesn't have to be macroand huge, it can be very small, but it has to mean something about you and be good for yourself. >> why is this such an important conversation to have? >> for me? >> for everybody. >> i spends a lot of my time worshiping false gods. thinking what mattered was status and what mattered was power. and being a clinical director was more important than being a clinician. you know? or being the host of msnbc show is more important than being a cameraman. >> or that using that show for whatever it is is a way that delivers value so be on yourself. >> and that we're all of value. and for those that would say th this is hocus-pocus, i would say that sometimes the truth is simple. >> and it's hard to convince a goldfish they're in water so